Ultimate Spider-Man by Mark Bagley 0

[Twanj]

I wanted to start a discussion/document Mark Bagley's work on Ultimate Spider-Man.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, and post examples but this is the feeling that I've got from watching auctions and what's out there the last few years. It seems like at least some of Bagley's recent covers are pencils only, with inks over bluelines by inkers like Dell, Hanna, Hennessy.

COVERS

Bagley did issues #1/2, 1-111 I think and some others. What a run!

The majority of covers are pencils only. The published covers seemed to be airbrushed(?) or something and look horrid colored.

#35 (Venom) was inked after publication by Batt, which has caused problems at auction before.

#157-159 are inked. Are these inks over original pencils?

In addition, Altering Bros seem to have a #36 cover (Venom & Spidey) RECREATION in pencils.

INTERIORS

These for the most part are inked. Are they inks over original pencils?

Some pencils only interiors have been up for auction recently (#160), but at least 1 page was inked.

[Twanj]

#36 cover vs "alternate" version by Altering Bros.

[comix4fun]

I think most of those early covers were shot directly from the pencils and they used some digital coloring to complete them. 

[Wolvie_Fan]

Issue #42 original pencils, cover, poster, and bag.  They all look like they were colored differently.  Maybe, like Chris said, they were shot directly from the pencils?  Hell, I dunno, but I figure I would throw in my two cents in...

 

Edited July 3, 2023 by Wolvie_Fan

[Twanj]

On 7/3/2023 at 12:47 PM, Wolvie_Fan said:

Issue #42 original pencils, cover, poster, and bag.  They all look like they were colored differently.  Maybe, like Chris said, they were shot directly from the pencils?  Hell, I dunno, but I figure I would throw in my two cents...

That's awesome!

Here are mine with the 2000s coloring.

[grapeape]

On 7/3/2023 at 8:15 AM, Twanj said:

#36 cover vs "alternate" version by Altering Bros.

VILE ARTS AND CRAFT GAMES.

[Matches_Malone]

As a reference for USM35. Here are Bagley's pre-inked pencils only, and later inked by Matt "Batt" Banning.  It was inked over the original pencils in 2008/2009 after publication in 2005.  Batt added additional art on the Moon. 

Edited July 4, 2023 by Matches_Malone

[fmaz]

Backs up the "interiors are inked" theory.  Not from USM, but from Ultimatum: Spider-Man Requiem so it's still the same line.  Inked by Scott Hanna.

 

[Twanj]

On 7/3/2023 at 8:06 PM, grapeape said:

VILE ARTS AND CRAFT GAMES.

Exactly. And maybe I should have been more explicit, the mockup one appears just to be a commission/recreation. They didn't add the stuff to the original one.

On 7/3/2023 at 10:40 PM, Matches_Malone said:

As a reference for USM35. Here are Bagley's pre-inked pencils only, and later inked by Matt "Batt" Banning.  It was inked over the original pencils in 2008/2009 after publication in 2005.  Batt added additional art on the Moon. 

Thanks! I had not seen the pencils. Why on earth do this? Leave the published art alone and do your commission on bluelines. Then you have both.

On 7/4/2023 at 1:29 AM, fmaz said:

Backs up the "interiors are inked" theory.  Not from USM, but from Ultimatum: Spider-Man Requiem so it's still the same line.  Inked by Scott Hanna.

Nice!

[grapeape]

On 7/4/2023 at 5:54 AM, Twanj said:

Exactly. And maybe I should have been more explicit, the mockup one appears just to be a commission/recreation. They didn't add the stuff to the original one.

Thanks! I had not seen the pencils. Why on earth do this? Leave the published art alone and do your commission on bluelines. Then you have both.

Nice!

That's a relief. I kept thinking why do that to Bagley's perfect #36? The 35 is frustrating because the inking after the fact of publishing, hurts my heart. In no way am I disparaging Matt's inks, because he did a very nice job. It's what you said. Preserve the original by lightboxing the pencils on a separate board and than you have two pieces of art. Thanx to Matches Malone for posting the before and after.

[chrisco37]

The pages (interiors) I have are inks over pencil.

USM 47 - Bagley/Thibert

USM 97 - Bagley/Dell

 

[Twanj]

On 7/6/2023 at 9:59 AM, chrisco37 said:

The pages (interiors) I have are inks over pencil.

USM 47 - Bagley/Thibert

USM 97 - Bagley/Dell

I love em.

In my mind I prefer Thibert on inks, it seems like they were together for a while? But seeing em together, the Dell inks are just as good.

 

Here are some of the pages from #159-160 that have been on Comic Link lately. They are not mine, just posting for reference. I've only seen 1 that's inked from #160

 

[Khazano]

I can add a little bit on context here....

All the OG covers were pencils only. When Bagley came back at the end, those three covers were pencil over inks the old fashioned way. Side note. At the time it happened, I sent a pretty snarky message to the collector whom had BATT ink that issue 35 cover, basically chastising him for ruining that cover for the rest of us.  To which he told me "it's his to do with what he wants and since he'll never sell it, it doesnt matter." I knew that was a lie the moment I read it. 

I own the original cover to 36. The Donellys took a recreation that a collector commissioned after unsuccessfully trying to buy my cover from me,  and then slapped those logos on it and called it an alternate. That was probably the angriest I've ever been in this hobby.

All the originals except some of the early Venom issues, and later Death of Ultimate Spider-Man were all pencils over inks the old fashioned way. Also, the last page of issue 24 (i think it was 24...) was done almost entirely digitally. I have the layouts used to make it, and its a very loose outline of Spidey's body, thats it. Mark was trying something new, but didn't like it. Ill dig out that page and upload a scan. I dont think an image of has ever been put online. 

[Twanj]

On 7/7/2023 at 7:53 AM, Khazano said:

I can add a little bit on context here....

All the OG covers were pencils only. When Bagley came back at the end, those three covers were pencil over inks the old fashioned way. Side note. At the time it happened, I sent a pretty snarky message to the collector whom had BATT ink that issue 35 cover, basically chastising him for ruining that cover for the rest of us.  To which he told me "it's his to do with what he wants and since he'll never sell it, it doesnt matter." I knew that was a lie the moment I read it. 

I own the original cover to 36. The Donellys took a recreation that a collector commissioned after unsuccessfully trying to buy my cover from me,  and then slapped those logos on it and called it an alternate. That was probably the angriest I've ever been in this hobby.

All the originals except some of the early Venom issues, and later Death of Ultimate Spider-Man were all pencils over inks the old fashioned way. Also, the last page of issue 24 (i think it was 24...) was done almost entirely digitally. I have the layouts used to make it, and its a very loose outline of Spidey's body, thats it. Mark was trying something new, but didn't like it. Ill dig out that page and upload a scan. I dont think an image of has ever been put online. 

Thanks! That's exactly what I was looking for!

What's the story with the way the covers are colored vs interiors? The interiors still look great while the covers look very dated to me.

#35 that's wrong to do.

#36 that's downright evil!

That's interesting about the #24 last page. I looked it up and couldn't tell.

[Dr. Balls]

On 7/7/2023 at 5:53 AM, Khazano said:

I own the original cover to 36. The Donellys took a recreation that a collector commissioned after unsuccessfully trying to buy my cover from me,  and then slapped those logos on it and called it an alternate. That was probably the angriest I've ever been in this hobby.

Holy cow, that's crazy. Does this classify as a 'forgery' - and if so, what legal recourse is there - if any (I'm sure there is, but lodging it is another level of action)? Has the "alternate" #36 sold to someone not knowing what it is?

[Khazano]

On 7/7/2023 at 6:04 AM, Twanj said:

Thanks! That's exactly what I was looking for!

What's the story with the way the covers are colored vs interiors? The interiors still look great while the covers look very dated to me.

#35 that's wrong to do.

#36 that's downright evil!

That's interesting about the #24 last page. I looked it up and couldn't tell.

In terms of the cover's coloring. You've gotta remeber you're looking at them through the view lens of today's sensibilities and technology. That book debuted in 2000. Over 20 years ago. Back then that look wasn't dated, it was fresh. CGI was in it's infancy. PS2 hadn't even come out yet. Bill Clinton was still in office. But more importantly, NO ONE was buying comics. So, with the entire Ultimate line, they were just trying to make stuff look new and stand out.  Which those books did.  There was nothing on the stands that looked like that at the time. Now it just looks like bad CGI. But then, that really was a different story. 

Yes, I agree, what they've done with my issue 36 covers (and others like it) it is downright evil.  I initially sent them a polite email informing them about the fact that it was a commission. After seeing no change, I sent some scathing emails, and after that, pretty sure I posted both on this message board and Facebook groups about the deviousness of it all. To this day, should I ever see either brother at a con, I plan on ripping into them something fierce about it all.  

I was wrong, it wasnt issue #24, it was issue #16. Again, speaking to technology. Waicom had just introduced the Cintiq tablet and Mark figured he'd give it a shot. Thankfully, he didnt like using it. So, this was the only page ever done that way.   Attached is a scan. 

 

[Khazano]

On 7/7/2023 at 8:59 AM, Dr. Balls said:

Holy cow, that's crazy. Does this classify as a 'forgery' - and if so, what legal recourse is there - if any (I'm sure there is, but lodging it is another level of action)? Has the "alternate" #36 sold to someone not knowing what it is?

Who even if the one supposed to launch the legal recourse? I own the art, but not the image. So.  It would probably have to be Marvel, cause they're the ones whom technically still own the rights to the image. All commissions fall under a gray area of copyright law. 

[Dr. Balls]

On 7/7/2023 at 11:01 AM, Khazano said:

Who even if the one supposed to launch the legal recourse? I own the art, but not the image. So.  It would probably have to be Marvel, cause they're the ones whom technically still own the rights to the image. All commissions fall under a gray area of copyright law. 

I would guess the recourse comes out of how the "alternate" is being sold. Are they trying to pass it off as a true vintage "alternate" cover even though it's a modern commission? Or do they word it like "This is a commissioned "alternate" modern rendition of #36"? (I have no idea if this "alternate" sold or what - I'm just asking questions)

You might not own the rights, but you own the original art that has an incredible value - while a commission wouldn't affect the value of your art, a commission marketed as something original seems that it could legitimately devalue the true original. I mean - again, depending on how it's being sold - is generally not taken lightly by authorities, as this art dealer discovered that buying Warhol reproductions and selling them as the real thing found out. If you believe you're buying an original signed by Jack Kirby (for example) and come to find out it's not really an original signed by Jack Kirby but was knowingly drawn/rendered/packaged by a different artist in a deceptive way - that's going to get the seller in some legal trouble.

Edited July 7, 2023 by Dr. Balls

[skrilla1212]

Incidentally the cover for 35 is coming up for auction (again?):

https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/covers/mark-bagley-and-matt-banning-as-batt-inked-after-publication-ultimate-spider-man-35-cov/p/7341-59004.s?ic4=GalleryView-ShortDescription-071515

[Twanj]

On 7/9/2023 at 7:53 AM, skrilla1212 said:

Incidentally the cover for 35 is coming up for auction (again?):

https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/covers/mark-bagley-and-matt-banning-as-batt-inked-after-publication-ultimate-spider-man-35-cov/p/7341-59004.s?ic4=GalleryView-ShortDescription-071515

Yes, it's a real shame. At least one of the times it was auctioned, this wasn't disclosed and I believe the sale was cancelled.

It's basically an unpublished commission.

"Mark Bagley and Matt Banning (as Batt - inked after publication)"

"Bagley provided the pencils, and Banning was later commissioned to add new inks to the work after publication."

Edited July 9, 2023 by Twanj